Talk:Rules of Future World
Rules Reform 3.0 I wanted Future World to allow for more creative freedom and cool shit but people abuse it so as per Superwarmonkey's recommendations, things are becoming more totalitarian in Future World to keep shit functional. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 02:53, July 13, 2012 (UTC) Queries UP, you need to draft those new rules at the utmost of haste, we don't have war rights now. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 18:40, August 1, 2012 (UTC) The Consequence Rule Alright, ladies and gentlemen, now that Huria is officially disconnected and I can do this on neutral ground, I am proposing the "Consequence Rule." Basically, it's like the forfeited war rights rule, however, this has to do with internal policies and noncombatant issues as well. Like we saw with Huria, its representatives taunted and threatened during UN summits and publicly threatened war against nations for extremely minor, trivial issues. Now, OOCly these nations enjoy protection and never suffer any consequences. I want all actions to have consequences. I want some ideas from you guys, so we can all have given input for this. I won't allow another Huria. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 17:54, August 11, 2012 (UTC) Then that also means you can't allow another Everett. With beating delegates, killing people on a whim because of hurt feelings, bombing other countries for deciding their own policies; Everett and its "president" have done whatever they wanted with no consequences. Besides, its called politics, Iran and Israel have been doing what Huria did for decades. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 18:12, August 11, 2012 (UTC) "Killing people on a whim"... you can't have consequences for covert operations that no one knows about. There is a difference between Spencer's kicking of the Saudi prince in a UN building vs. a SEAL team going in a killing some mofo. As for the Sauds, I can simply change the event, as Huria apparently can switch around and alter its history three times, including moving its territory several times and undoing or redoing events. In regards to consequences for "internal policies", I need further description of what you mean. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:32, August 11, 2012 (UTC) : Is it just me, or do you pop up whenever I mention Everett? I find that disturbing. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 18:51, August 11, 2012 (UTC) : With internal policies, I meant having stuff like child soldiers, killing the weak, etc. Those types of things. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 19:47, August 11, 2012 (UTC) ::: That rule would be impossible to maintain. What one nation views as acceptable means something totally different elsewhere. Child labor is "morally wrong" in the U.S., but in places like India, Russia, most of Africa and Asia, there's no issue with it. Plus, this would cause more harm than good, as two player nation could cross examine the other for reason to go to war with them, causing more chaos than before when the war rights were in place. Consequences vary greatly depending on the culture, and one (meaning myself too) could exploit that. Everett says Arab women aren't free, while an Arab nation could say the say for Everetti women. In doing so, they could therefore say to "free" the women of the other nation, war is needed. ::: There are too many stinkin' ways one could try to rationalize what consequences are valid, and which ones aren't. Many nations (chiefly Africa and Asia), have a "kill the weak" or "draft the babies" deal going on. A third of Burmese soldiers are children (some join for the prestige and power), and China has a history of cleaning its hands of those who can't care for themselves. You can't come up with a standard law on consequences when there are too many factors to consider, such as choice and culture. --[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 20:03, August 11, 2012 (UTC) We are all Westerners here, and since many websites which aren't even based out of the United States find a common ground in US law, I think it's good if we base this off of what is morally, commonly, accepted in the US. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 21:06, August 11, 2012 (UTC) Super, I feel that the military aid thing is a bit unfair. While I see the reasoning behind it, it would be tantamount to saying that Everett could not help Israel of Iraqistan because all three were controlled by UP. It is also unrealistic to a degree, since the user may pick nations that hav always been allies, or may share a border. If Poland is invaded, Lapland, which share both a border, and has good relations with them IC and OOC, why shuld Palo Alto be barred from aiding them since he controls both? See where I'm going with this? ((ლ(() (ಠ益ಠ) ((ლ(() 23:06, October 9, 2012 (UTC) Agreed, strongly. 77topaz (talk) 23:19, October 9, 2012 (UTC)